I see liberals defending Iran's right to build nuclear weapons.
I haven't heard this at all. I've seen liberals defend Iran's right to a nuclear program (used for power, with uranium insufficiently enriched to create a bomb), but that's not even the point. Iran currently has a nuclear program. They have for decades (Bibi has also been telling us for decades how close Iran is to a warhead; according to him, it should have happened 16 years ago, and it's been "within a year" ever since then). So here are our options:
Go to war with Iran over their nuclear program that we have no evidence is being used for weapons. Sounds similar to Iraq, right? You know, where Bibi said it would have a calming effect on the region and would put Iran in its place? Except that the region is completely destabilized, and Iran has used this opportunity to strengthen its influence over Shia-dominated states. Bibi's on fire with this foreign policy stuff. This option would be super, since it further tarnishes any and all international goodwill we have accumulated by attacking a sovereign nation in an offensive war, which would result in thousands of American and Iranian lives lost needlessly, and further increase the deficit.
Sanction Iran until they capitulate to American demands. We've tried this for over 30 years now. I won't say it hasn't worked; it's got Iran to the table, after all. But it can only go so far; some deal has to be struck eventually for progress to be made.
Make a deal with Iran, holding them to strict guidelines for their nuclear program, insuring uranium continues to be enriched only for power, and making sure Iran is held to that promise with regular UN inspections. OH, SURE, JUST KOWTOW TO IRAN, OBAMA. Except that's the exact opposite of what's happening. Iran has no incentive, especially if they are secretly developing nuclear weapons, to let any inspectors within pissing distance of their facilities. This option is somewhat humiliating for Iran, but will enable them to have much more economic prosperity and trade relations with the West as a result of dropped sanctions. But hey - you just don't like Iran or their dick ayatollah, so fuck 'em. Let's try option #4:
Do nothing. With this option, Iran will still have a nuclear program, except we have absolutely no insight into how far progressed it is if they are in fact developing weapons because we have no weapons inspectors.
I could type an essay about how your Putin analysis is flawed, but it's late, so I'll bulletpoint it:
Obama has somehow herded nearly all of the geopolitical cats that are Europe into enacting sanctions against Russia (when they were extremely hesitant to do so), at dramatic economic cost to Russia, significant economic loss for Europe, and nearly no effect to America. Not shabby.
Obama has increased military presence in the NATO ally Baltic states, as well as sent military advisers, aid, and equipment to Ukraine. The same is true of the UK, Poland, and other NATO allies.
Merkel, who had fast been building ties with Russia, has completely alienated Putin along with the rest of Europe's major players. Putin's remaining global friends are: North Korea and Belarus. Excellent company.
Crimea is fairly poor, and most of its infrastructure comes from Ukraine. The only thing of value on Crimea is Russia's precious Black Sea warm water ports (which, again, Russia already leased from Ukraine). If Russia were stupid enough to get into a conflict with NATO, those ports would quickly pose a problem, as access to the Black Sea is run through the Dardanelles, which is controlled by Turkey - a NATO ally.
If you think Putin is skipping across the Kremlin high-fiving everyone he sees, you're seriously misreading the situation.
Can't wait for your next four-line non sequitur about how I'm wrong about everything.